H.S. MAUNDER Vs. PUNJAB STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common order, I propose to dispose of two connected writ petitions bearing Nos. 4430 and 12223 of 1992 as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. Learned Counsel for the parties also suggest the same course to be adopted. The facts have, however, been extracted from CWP No. 4430 of 1992.

(2.) MR . H.S. Maunder is a law graduate and after having attained this qualification, he practised as a pleader from August 26, 1956 to February 24, 1959. He got Government Service on February 24, 1959 as Assistant Treasury Officer and continued on this post upto March 16, 1966 when, as a result of a competitive examination held by the Punjab Public service Commission for recruitment to the post of Subordinate Judges in P.C.S(Judicial Branch) in the year 1965, he was selected as a Subordinate Judge and he joined as such on March 17, 1966, After his entry into PCS(Judicial Branch) as Subordinate Judge, he continued in service and in due course of time promoted to the Punjab Superior Judicial Service as Additional District Judge, from which -post he retired on July 31, 1996 on attaining the age of superannuation. It is conceded position that the petitioner had qualifying service of approximately thirty one and half years. It is again conceded position that a government servant, who has qualifying service of thirty three years is entitled to full pension. In the present writ, claim of petitioner is that even though he had served for a period of thirty one and half years, he should be given full pension in view of the beneficiary rule 4.2, of the Punjab Civil Service Rules (Volume II) which in terms, talks of adding to qualifying service the period mentioned therein. Rule 4.2, sole reliance of the petitioner for the relief asked for, needs an immediate notice. Same reads thus:

(3.) I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case. In my considered view, only ground pressed into service in opposing the claim of petitioner can not possibly be sustained. No doubt, like petitioner, Trilok Nath Gupta, had also based his claim on the same rule, i.e. 4.2 and the benefit of same was not given to the latter, but the reasons for not giving the said relief, are not far to seek. Concededly, in so far as T.N.Gupta is concerned, he competed for the post of P.C.S. (Executive Branch). It could not be disputed during the course of arguments that to compete for the post of PCS(EB), necessary qualification is graduation. Even though, T.N. Gupta, was a law graduate yet the essential qualification for appointment to the post of PCS(EB) was not a degree in law. If one is to go by the language employed in rule 4.2, it would be clear that clause (a) in which is one of the conditions entitling a person to have the benefit of said rule, pertains to appointments to a service or post, which clearly suggests that pre -requisite for appointment to the post in question, is to have either research or specialist qualification or experience in scientific, technology or professional fields, after graduation. This is the marked distinction between the two cases, i.e. one in hand and that of T.N. Gupta, dealt with by Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in the case aforesaid. A reading of judgment in T.N. Gupta's case (supra) would reveal that benefit of the said rule was not made available to the petitioner as he was not appointed to a post for which the post graduate research or specialist qualification or experience in scientific, technology or professional field, was essential. It has been categorically observed by the Learned Single Judge that it would not be disputed that person appointed to PCS(EB) is not required to have post graduate research or specialist qualification or experience in scientific, technology or professional fields. Clause (a) of Rule 4.2 was, thus, not satisfied in the said case.